That would be illegal! They are breaching the law!
They are only financial mediators.
Perhaps a person in Paypal wanted your toy, and wanted it for free!

Very fishy behavior!

I don't think that you understood what happened
I wanted my money back from the seller
Paypal reimbursed me the money and I shipped them the item.
What exactly do you see fishy/free here ?
It was from far more honest that what Ectaco did with Valentinka, though you did not qualify that behavior as fishy did you?

It was from far more honest that what Ectaco did with Valentinka, though you did not qualify that behavior as fishy did you?

Why you say something like that, as if you think you know what I think?
Why should I state the obvious, and am I not allowed to state my opinion about paypal, what in my mind is a less than obvious crime?

I take the words of valentika with a grain of salt, but I understand the problem she described from both sides.
The company clearly did not think this through; and now they lost $400, and a JBC, in exchange for a regular jetbook.
The crime lies in Paypal, in that Valentika should have returned the item to ectaco like should have been part of the return policy to retrieve the money.

Sending it to paypal and receiving the money, is paypal stealing $400 from ectaco, and getting a device for that.

However there may exist a third possibility, that someone at paypal decided to buy the device, perhaps wanted to buy it but thought the $500 was a little too high. He thought to return the $400 to paypal, AND return another $400 to valentika, in exchange for a Jetbook Color.
In which case, Ectaco got their money, and rid of a problematic customer,
Someone at paypal got a JBC for $400, without having to send a Jetbook to Ectaco, so good deal for them,
And valentika is happy thinking she got the money back at a loss for ectaco.
However, what i think is more true in this is that,
The only one at a disadvantage is Valentika, who lost a jetbook, an 2 shipments (one for the jetbook, and one for the JBC), without gaining anything out of this deal.

If the third is true, then Valentika must have agreed to the terms, and the deal should have been a bad one for her; but a good one for ectaco, and for the mistery man @ paypal providing $400 for a JBC.

I take the words of valentika with a grain of salt, but I understand the problem she described from both sides.
The company clearly did not think this through; and now they lost $400, and a JBC, in exchange for a regular jetbook.
The crime lies in Paypal, in that Valentika should have returned the item to ectaco like should have been part of the return policy to retrieve the money.

Sending it to paypal and receiving the money, is paypal stealing $400 from ectaco, and getting a device for that.

However there may exist a third possibility, that someone at paypal decided to buy the device, perhaps wanted to buy it but thought the $500 was a little too high. He thought to return the $400 to paypal, AND return another $400 to valentika, in exchange for a Jetbook Color.
In which case, Ectaco got their money, and rid of a problematic customer,
Someone at paypal got a JBC for $400, without having to send a Jetbook to Ectaco, so good deal for them,
And valentika is happy thinking she got the money back at a loss for ectaco.
However, what i think is more true in this is that,
The only one at a disadvantage is Valentika, who lost a jetbook, an 2 shipments (one for the jetbook, and one for the JBC), without gaining anything out of this deal.

If the third is true, then Valentika must have agreed to the terms, and the deal should have been a bad one for her; but a good one for ectaco, and for the mistery man @ paypal providing $400 for a JBC.

ProDigit,

What you are talking about? I never mentionned that Paypal asked ME to send JBC to Paypal. At some point of my story, some time ago, BEFORE refunding me my money, Paypal asked me to return JBC to Ectaco. Paypal provided me with Ectaco's shipping address and Paypal even paid the shipping fee for me to ship my JBC to Ectaco. I closely followed Paypal's instruction. I shipped JBC to Ectaco and provided Paypal with the tracking number the same day. Paypal shared this tracking number with Ectaco right away. So Ectaco knew (5 days before they received my JBC) that the package is coming and Ectaco could track the package. Then Ectaco received the package with my JBC and choose to refuse the delivery. So the package with my JBC arrived back to my place. Paypal refunded me money since I attempted to return my JBC to Ectaco. That's all.

So I still have JBC in my physical possession. I am ready to ship it back to Ectaco again any time if Ectaco asks me to do it and pays the shipping fee this time. So far I didn't receive such request from Ectaco.

The point is that Paypal NEVER told ME to ship JBC to Paypal. So I completely don't understand what you are discussing here.

All in all ectaco is a company that just descended fron heavens while all the others are evil

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProDigit

Why you say something like that, as if you think you know what I think?
Why should I state the obvious, and am I not allowed to state my opinion about paypal, what in my mind is a less than obvious crime?

I take the words of valentika with a grain of salt, but I understand the problem she described from both sides.
The company clearly did not think this through; and now they lost $400, and a JBC, in exchange for a regular jetbook.
The crime lies in Paypal, in that Valentika should have returned the item to ectaco like should have been part of the return policy to retrieve the money.

Sending it to paypal and receiving the money, is paypal stealing $400 from ectaco, and getting a device for that.

However there may exist a third possibility, that someone at paypal decided to buy the device, perhaps wanted to buy it but thought the $500 was a little too high. He thought to return the $400 to paypal, AND return another $400 to valentika, in exchange for a Jetbook Color.
In which case, Ectaco got their money, and rid of a problematic customer,
Someone at paypal got a JBC for $400, without having to send a Jetbook to Ectaco, so good deal for them,
And valentika is happy thinking she got the money back at a loss for ectaco.
However, what i think is more true in this is that,
The only one at a disadvantage is Valentika, who lost a jetbook, an 2 shipments (one for the jetbook, and one for the JBC), without gaining anything out of this deal.

If the third is true, then Valentika must have agreed to the terms, and the deal should have been a bad one for her; but a good one for ectaco, and for the mistery man @ paypal providing $400 for a JBC.

It appears to me, that Paypal is the only one who is disadvantaged in this case.

Ectaco was paid for the device, and, as far as we know, still has that.

"Valentinka" is the one who really made out well, she got her money back and still
has the, relatively expensive device. That it is apparently a device she should not
have purchased in the first place, makes the outcome all the more ironic.

It appears to me, that Paypal is the only one who is disadvantaged in this case.

Ectaco was paid for the device, and, as far as we know, still has that.

"Valentinka" is the one who really made out well, she got her money back and still
has the, relatively expensive device. That it is apparently a device she should not
have purchased in the first place, makes the outcome all the more ironic.

Luck;
Ken

How do you know Ectaco was paid for the device? It could be that paypal refunded the money, and Ectaco never received it.

It appears to me, that Paypal is the only one who is disadvantaged in this case.

Ectaco was paid for the device, and, as far as we know, still has that.

Interesting: this information is nowhere to be found in all these postings.
How could it, as neither Ectaco nor PayPal contibuted to the thread.
As far as we know? I don't know and neither do you - all speculation and fantasies.
Is it the business model of PayPal to pay for all the transactions gone wrong? I don't think so.

The point is that Paypal NEVER told ME to ship JBC to Paypal. So I completely don't understand what you are discussing here.

Well, someone claimed the normal procedure was to return controversial merchandise not to the seller, but to PayPal - which is not the usual procedure - and quite frankly, does'nt make sense at all ...

Interesting: this information is nowhere to be found in all these postings.
How could it, as neither Ectaco nor PayPal contibuted to the thread.
As far as we know? I don't know and neither do you - all speculation and fantasies.
Is it the business model of PayPal to pay for all the transactions gone wrong? I don't think so.

If you have been following the thread and noted the period of time that
went by from when the original transaction took place until "Valentinka"
apparently decided to return the device, it would be reasonable to conclude
that the original PayPal transaction would have been completed and Ectaco
paid. In fact I would be surprised if they would have shipped the JBC to
"Valentinka" before PayPal had credited their account.

If PayPal has the means to debit Ectaco's PayPal account, and did without
Ectaco being in possession of the JBC, then it would be Ectaco who ends up
the one ripped off. In any case "Valentinka" seems to have ended up with
both her money and the JBC.